FAA crack down on "professional builders"

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:32:31 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
wrote:

Actually, IIRC, an owner can /maintain/ a certified aircraft as well.
There
is a pubished list of approved owner performed maintenance
steps--provided
that the appropriate parts, tools, manuals, and procedures are used.
However, in the case of type cerficicated aircraft, a mechanic with IA
must
inspect and sign-off repairs and periodic condition inspections--and a
professional mechanic or apprentice /usually/ performs the work as well.

The owner of a certified aircraft can perform *certain* tasks with no
supervision or other signoff...the list of preventative maintenance tasks
spelled out in Appendix A of 14CFR Part 43. As you say, the owner can
perform
any other maintenance task as well, but the aircraft cannot be flown until
a
certified individual takes responsibility for the work.

In contrast, no such signoff is needed for a homebuilt. Anyone can perform
major
alterations and repairs and return the aircraft to service. I can (and
have...)
do work like removing an engine cylinder or replace major airframe
components on
a homebuilt and signed off the work myself. The only thing I have to be
concerned about is whether the A&P performing the annual condition
inspection
(up to a year later) will consider the airplane still airworthy.

The amount of difference this makes depends on one's individual
circumstances.
Some owners have good friends who are A&Ps. To them, there's little
difference
between Experimental and Certified, other than the need to use approved
parts.

Ron Wanttaja

I agree with you about the general rules regarding major repair of a
homebuilt. However, the issue of major alteration is another story which
depends upon whether the alteration would change the operating limitations.
That, in turn, opens multiple cans of worms.

The difference between certified and amateur-built can certainly be trivial
for non-revenue day-VFR. At the other extreme, the two categories can vary
wildly (or not) for night-IFR. If you use a certified combination of engine
and propeller, standard engineering and configuration practices, and
exemplary workmanship; then including single-engine night-IFR in the
operating limitations should be much easier than might otherwise be the
case.

I really do like some of the engine conversions, as long as the claims are
realistic, so I really don't want to get into a rant on either side of the
subject. I can see some sound arguments on both sides--just as I can on the
canard issue, plastic and glass versus metal, and a few others.

Peter